Mentoring community college faculty and staff: balancing contradictions of informal program components and formal program structure.

While research indicates that community colleges believe mentoring is valuable, there is recent evidence that the career benefits from community college mentoring programs may be less than desired for participants and lower than in other sectors. Based on mentees' perceptions gained from interviews of 23 mentees from nine community colleges, the researchers developed a framework for community college mentoring programs that is contrary to frequent practice and that is seemingly contradictory in nature. The researchers propose a model for formal programs that is non-intrusive, yet it is one which provides visible and strong support by the college, with informal structural characteristics that enhance the career development of mentees in the community college setting.

**********

Mentoring has been shown to be one of the most beneficial aspects of successful careers in business, industry, and education. During the past 25 years, organizations have recognized the benefits of mentoring and initiated formal workplace mentoring into their training and development programs (Daloz, 1999; Douglas, 1997). More recently, community colleges have recognized the value of providing formal mentoring programs, but little research exists to inform colleges of the sorts of programs to offer their faculty and staff (League for Innovation in the Community College, 2000; Van Ast & Linduska, 1995; Valeau, 1999). This study sought to illuminate the structural characteristics of formal mentoring programs that best support the perceived career benefits of mentoring.

Most of the research on the benefits of mentoring has been conducted in the business sector with few empirical research reports on mentoring in academic settings (Wunsch, 1994). Of the mentoring research in education, most has occurred in the high school or in four-year colleges with little in the community college setting. Of the research in the community college, much has focused on informal mentoring of high-level leaders and less on formal programs for junior and mid-level faculty and administrators (Barhorst, 1997; Merriam & Thomas, 1986). There is empirical evidence, however, that community colleges value mentoring programs on their campuses (League for Innovation in the Community College, 2000) and that those who are mentored describe their relationships as providing both psychosocial and career benefits (Merriam & Thomas, 1986; Valeau, 1999; Van Ast & Linduska, 1995). Psychosocial benefits refer to aspects of mentoring such as role modeling, counseling, friendship, acceptance, and confirmation. On the other hand, career benefits involve such aspects as coaching, protection, sponsorship, challenging assignments, and such (Kram, 1985) (see Table 1 later in this article). These benefits are similar to those reported in research studies in other sectors of the workplace (Mullen, 1998; Noe, 1988; Olian, Carroll, Giannantonio, & Feren, 1988). That is, psychosocial functions enhance an individual's sense of competence and identity in the work role, while career functions enhance advancement by offering opportunities for exposure and guidance in career development. Although community colleges recognize the value of providing mentoring programs that promote both psychosocial and career benefits, mentees participating in formal community college mentoring programs report fewer career benefits than do mentees participating in formal and informal mentoring relationships in other educational and business sector programs (Chao, Waltz, & Gardner, 1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Hopkins, 2003). Valeau's (1999) study of mentoring in California community colleges concludes that mentees would like more career benefits to result and also concludes that other program improvements are needed. Similar findings by Dunlap and Pence (1990) in the public education sector support the recommendation that more attention be given to program structures that support career benefits.

To explore program structures that enhance career benefits, the researchers interviewed 23 mentees from nine community colleges who had participated in a mentoring relationship for at least one year. Each mentee participant was questioned about the mentoring relationship, about how mentoring supported career development, and about ways in which mentees would design a program that would best meet their needs within their community colleges. In particular, this study was an effort to offer community colleges a research-based program structure designed to meet the specific needs within their context.

This study confirmed that even though community college mentees receive psychosocial benefits, they would like more career benefits to result from their mentoring relationship. Overall, mentees described wanting formal programs that offer strong, visible--but non-intrusive--institutional support for informal mentoring. Formal and informal in this context are specifically defined by mentees as something different from how these terms are generally used in the literature. Strong institutional support is defined collectively by mentees as a formal mentoring program with informal structural components that provide resources and materials without proscribing how they are used and that offer voluntary informational meetings without mandating attendance (see Table 3 later in this article). Mentees prefer formal support for mentoring that is informal in nature so they can choose how best to develop their relationships and address their individual needs. This finding is counter to many current practices and different from the advice offered by some programs for establishing formal mentoring relationships.

This article summarizes the major themes emerging from this study that provide a context for understanding how mentees perceive and interpret the benefits of their mentoring relationships and that provide a platform for community colleges to build mentoring programs that effectively support career and professional development with mentee interests in mind.

Design of Study

Since little is known about how program structure supports career benefits in the community college context, a qualitative descriptive research design was considered the most appropriate approach to gaining the understanding and insight needed to provide supporting program structures. The researchers used Kram's (1985) psychosocial and career mentoring functions as theoretical sensitizing concepts. Open-ended interviews enabled the researchers to explore the mentee perceptions of specific career benefits of mentoring and the ways in which these benefits are affected or supported by current mentoring practices in the community college. Perception refers to mentees' personal interpretations of their experiences with a mentor. Knowing how mentees perceive career and psychosocial resources available to them helps in understanding how mentees experience their mentoring relationship within the institutional framework and program design. This inductive strategy allowed the researchers to understand mentees' perceptions and then incorporate them into a proposed framework for a mentoring program model for community colleges.

Participants

The researchers selected participants who met four criteria: (1) participation in an adult mentoring relationship, (2) participation in an organized community college-based program, (3) participation in a program that included professional development in its goals, and (4) participation in their mentoring relationship 1 year or more prior to the interview. The researchers interviewed 23 mentees from three different mentoring programs representing nine community colleges. Interviews were conducted until the content became redundant. Every participant who was contacted consented to the interview. Fourteen participants were male and nine were female. Thirteen of the mentees were assigned to their mentor; 10 chose their mentor. Some participants had two mentors (one in the department and one in the college). Participants were faculty and administrators, some new to their college and some longer term mid-level employees.

Interviews

Interview questions focused on the mentees' perceptions of the ways in which mentoring had benefited their career and professional growth. Interview questions are provided in Appendix A. The interview included open-ended questions that provided a non-directive approach to understanding the mentees' perceptions about mentoring. The interview schedule included questions about the context of the mentoring, the general nature of the mentoring relationship, ways in which mentoring supported the mentees' career development, and how mentoring might have been better for mentees. In order to learn how mentees would view an ideal mentoring program, each interview included questions about how mentees might construct or assess a mentoring program. The length of each interview varied between 30 and 60 minutes.

Interviews were conducted both in person and by telephone, strictly adhering to consent and confidentiality requirements for research involving human subjects.

Analysis

Interviews were analyzed using an inductive approach (Creswell, 1998). Two people, a researcher and another person, coded each interview using Kram's (1985) categories for career and psychosocial functions as outlined in Table 1. The two coders identified mentoring functions and associated activities that occurred as well as those that did not occur but were desired. Close agreement existed between the two. Each difference in coding was reviewed by the second researcher in order to assign a single function. From the descriptions given by the mentees, major themes emerged about the processes and program structure thought to affect or enhance career benefits.

The career benefits mentioned by mentees were easily associated with the five career functions described by Kram (1985) in Table 1, thus confirming the mentoring framework used as a conceptual framework for the study. Themes emerged from the analysis that were similar to findings about supportive mentoring structures in other sectors (Dunlap & Pence, 1990; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). However, the findings from the interviews revealed a difference between observed practices in community colleges and the program structures outlined by mentees--that is, structures that mentees believed would provide support for career mentoring. These differences formed a basis for this study's recommendations for mentoring program components and structures in the community college setting.

Results

Using an inductive approach in order to code and categorize the data, the researchers used the data to develop a central organizing theme that describes the mentees' perceptions of the intersection among institutional support, program structure, and the desired career benefits of the relationship itself. Mentees describe wanting strong, visible--but non-intrusive-institutional support and more awareness on how to plan and conduct their mentoring relationships. In general, mentees believe that an informal program structure, as described in the next section, best supports the mentoring relationship. Mentees believe they would achieve a wider range of career benefits if they had access to more information about the mentoring process, how mentoring can enhance professional growth, and how often to have contact with the mentor. These three kinds of information were not readily available to many of the participants.

Maintain Program Informality With Strong Institutional Support

Overall, mentees believe that an informal program structure with strong institutional support provides the ideal context within which professional development can occur. Many of the mentees used the word informal to describe the way in which a mentoring program should be structured. They defined informal structure as one assuring confidentiality without top-down authority and mandated activities. This definition of informal differs from its use in the mentoring literature where the definition generally refers to relationships that occur outside the context of an organized program. Alternatively, the word formal has typically been used to describe mentoring relationships that occur within organized programs and relationships that are assigned by a program coordinator after considering an appropriate fit between the mentor and mentee.

By proposing an informal program structure, mentees were not suggesting that mentoring be left to the voluntary largess of individual faculty and administrators. Rather, they indicate that a mentoring relationship can best be nurtured and maintained when there is not a proscribed or mandated set of activities and format, when they are given choices during the mentoring process, and when their relationship is not subject to evaluation. A formal program with informal structural characteristics supports mentoring without constraining the natural evolution of a relationship. At the same time, strong institutional support assures that the college views mentoring as an important activity and that opportunities exist for mentees and mentors to develop greater awareness of the mentoring process.

Although mentees believe overly rigid and specified program structures constrain the evolution of their mentoring relationships, they express a need for ways to increase the career benefits from their mentoring. They suggest voluntary meetings among groups of mentees or mentors, rather than formal required activities, as a way to share their mentoring experiences and successes with each other. That is, they would like to have opportunities to discuss mentoring in informal yet organized settings that would permit them to discover how to structure their own relationships. They desire visible and accessible information and resources on how to conduct their mentoring relationships. Such resources might be offered during the meetings or as guides and suggestions in written format.

The unifying theme emerging from this study as discussed above includes several strong components, each of which is discussed more fully in the sections that follow. Overall, most of the mentees in the community college deemed it important for mentoring programs to recognize the nature of the relationships, to provide awareness on ways to achieve career benefits, and to provide strong advocacy for regular meetings.

Build on Relationship of Trust

Establishing a relationship built on trust is a necessary component of successful mentoring relationships. While this aspect is reflected in the literature on mentoring (Cohen, 2000; Zachary, 2000), the present researchers confirmed the important nature of trust in this study and identified important characteristics of the relationship that make trust possible.

According to mentees, a foundation of trust can be built by a mentor in a non-evaluative role, preferably outside the supervisory structure. Mentees describe mentoring as a one-on-one relationship with a mentor who listens and reflects with the mentee on the mentee's experience. They describe mentors who are accessible both with their time and personal support. In the present study, mentees who could not establish a trusting relationship reported being unable to proceed with their mentoring: "The problem was that we didn't build the relationship, and so he didn't come to mind; he wasn't accessible ..." (#10) (1).

While some of the mentees were able to build a mentoring relationship with their supervisor or with someone in a position to evaluate their performance, most reported feeling more comfortable because their mentot was not in a position to judge their performance or give input into their tenure: "I think it is important to go to ... a confidant ... someone outside the department to confide in when the problems may be departmental" (#7). One mentee voiced an even stronger opinion: "Very rarely do I think you can have a supervisor and mentor in the same person because you could say, you know, 'this is off the record,' but I don't think it's really going to be ... so I don't think people are going to ... really spill their guts, even though they say 'it's off the record'" (#4). Even a senior colleague can be in a position to evaluate the mentee and therefore less able to provide confidence: "My mentor has some authority over me in that his perceptions are fed to the department chair. At first I felt very comfortable ... now when there is a knock on the door and he wants to come in, I'm not as comfortable" (#1).

Some mentees believe it is easier to build trust when there are only two people involved rather than more people such as a group mentoring arrangement where mentees might be judged or become bored: "Mentoring is personal ... so it gives the mentee more freedom to ask questions. You can use it for your immediate needs ... it's not like being in a group with other colleagues where you might hold back ..." (#14). Unlike a mentoring relationship between two people, a group mentoring arrangement requires trust among all individuals and confidence that each person's needs are treated with equal importance.

When asked what they would do differently in their mentoring relationship, many mentees initially said they would not change their relationships. However, in subsequent discussion, they expressed a desire for more forms of career mentoring, such as new challenges, more networking, and increased sponsorship. As an example, one administrator noted, "I would leave it the same way. It was a very positive experience" (#17). But when asked what he would want in a mentor now, he said he wanted someone who will "challenge me, someone who can expose me to people in other areas, someone with insight into things that are happening across higher education" (#17). In other words, mentees who reported having successful relationships did not necessarily report achieving desired career benefits. The development of a relationship, while essential, did not assure support for career development. Although mentees were able, in retrospect, to tell how this might have occurred, they had not thought to discuss such actions with their mentors at the time.

Mentees were consistent in their judgments about the importance of developing a relationship based on trust and confidence. Without these, it was difficult to engage in open and frank discussions of professional matters. Several interviewees summed up the importance of these characteristics: "I think the relationship [with my other mentor] was built first, so now with the relationship, I feel comfortable going and saying what do you think about ... [my plan] ... or what should I do?" (#10); "As the friendship and communication evolved, I could talk with him about any issues" (#23); "The one thing I love about mentoring is that it sets up a relationship where [I] ... can go and talk about a situation and it can remain confidential. Because you come into a culture and you don't know the politics ... you're afraid" (#3); and "Basically, I needed a listening ear, someone who I could confide in. I needed to know that what I said wasn't going to come back to my campus ... it was someone I could trust" (#17).

Increase Awareness of Activities That Promote Professional Development

Although most of the mentees interviewed talked about their mentoring in positive ways, many stated that they lacked awareness about the ways in which mentoring might support their career and professional development. Mentees expressed these concerns by telling the researchers what did not work well, how they would act differently in their next mentoring relationship, how they might use a mentor now, or how they might set up a new mentoring program for faculty. It was in these contexts that mentees suggested ways to encourage more forms of professional development by explaining the advantages of longer relationships, the benefits of informal gatherings, and the usefulness of other activities initiated by the mentee or the mentor that could provide building blocks for the mentoring process. Examples of some of these activities are provided in Table 2.

Mentees recognized mentoring as an evolving process and expressed a desire for longer relationships that would allow them to work on focused professional concerns. For most, this meant a relationship that extended beyond the 1-year proscribed length provided in their program guidelines. For new faculty in the mentoring relationship, this aspect was expressed as more help with the tenure process and longer-term professional goals: "I would have liked to see it go on for about another year ... [not] 3 years ... more in line with our 2-year business cycle. I would have liked more help as I launched into the tenure process" (#3) and "a mentor during the second year and beyond ... [to address] ... concerns about tenure and more long-term professional college-wide issues" (#9).

Mentees in mid-career said that longer relationships would offer more opportunity to reflect on one's professional growth: "It would be nice to have an ongoing relationship with a mentor ... to discuss how you've grown" (#5).

The desire for more training was evident when mentees described the way they would design mentoring programs; however, mentees rarely called it training. Rather, mentees spoke about gatherings with mentees and mentors to share their mentoring experiences and the kinds of benefits others were getting. A meeting among mentees, without mentors present, was suggested as a way to open up frank discussion about how best to benefit from a mentor. The desire for this form of gathering was generally a desire by mentees to gain more information about ways to use the mentoring relationship to advance their own development: "I wanted to know what they were getting from their mentor that I might not be getting from mine. When you are first assigned to someone, you don't always know how to use them" (#3).

Similarly, meetings for mentors only were suggested as a way mentors might develop understandings of the objectives of mentoring and the kinds of activities that would help achieve these objectives: "I don't know if the objectives were clear. I think he felt a little uncomfortable at first" (#4). A meeting might help mentors understand how they can provide exposure and visibility, challenge their mentee with other assignments, provide sponsorship, and even protect their mentee.

Meetings that involved both mentor and mentee were suggested as a format for introducing the mentoring process at the beginning of the relationship and discussing how the process can help mentees achieve their professional goals and responsibilities. Consistently, such meetings were described as "focused but informal" gatherings. One mentee expressed the need for more focus but said he had advised the program coordinator not to structure the program: "I think if we are going to have a mentoring program we need to have a couple more regular meetings on how it [mentoring] works. Everyone told her [program coordinator], we don't want structure ... so she was sort of caught ... on that one. We want flexibility, yet we all decided that there should be a least one initial meeting with the mentor present where we go over basic faculty responsibilities" (#20).

Mentees described still other ways in which mentors could take additional initiative and thereby sponsor, challenge, protect, and give mentees exposure. To accomplish these kinds of mentoring, the mentor or mentee would, in some cases, need to initiate activities that go beyond the one-on-one meeting. One mentee suggested that mentors invite mentees to informal or formal meetings in the college as a way in which the mentee might meet faculty and administrators outside their department. Others suggested going together to an ongoing task force meeting, a governance council, a conference planning session, or simply an interest meeting--all as ways in which the mentee could meet others and learn more about the college planning processes: "It might have been useful for us to get together at some college-related functions where he could have introduced me to other faculty outside my department ... and learn what other faculty are doing" (#9).

   Mentees welcomed mentors who would challenge them professionally:

   I'd want ... networking, connections to other key people ...
   suggestions about how to organize an office, how to supervise
   faculty, how to structure my time (#13).

   It might be useful to have a mentor present during a classroom
   observation. Evaluations can be subjective and inconsistent [so
   the mentor can] serve as a non-evaluative observer and provide
   feedback (#9).

   I'd invent a mentor who would challenge me and say, 'You oughta
   look at this,' or 'You are spending too much time on that,' and
   give me the names of people I ought to meet with (#14).

   If you have a good mentoring relationship, problems probably
   would not happen because you talk through them ... it forces
   reflection ... and all of us have so much on our plates that often
   times we don't have time for critical reflections ... and thinking
   carefully about our own style (#22).

Mentees were able to tell the researchers how their mentors could take more initiative to promote their needs or to protect them. One mentee asked for help with finding ways to complete her degree and was disappointed that her mentor did not lobby on her behalf: "He just didn't--he didn't pursue it ... nothing happened" (#14). Another was grateful that her mentor observed her class prior to the formal observation so that she received feedback sooner and could respond prior to being evaluated for purposes of contract renewal.

Regular Face-to-Face Meetings Increase Likelihood of Professional Development

While mentees consistently stated their desire for informally structured programs, they combined their requests with an equally consistent desire for regular and sustained meetings. For mentees, an informal program provides a wide range of choices and options and at the same time includes time together so that mentoring can actually occur.

Those most vocal about the need for regular meetings did not meet regularly with their mentors. They were acutely aware of the fact they had not been mentored because they had not had the time to develop a relationship or to engage in the kinds of activities that foster professional development.

   I thought with his experience he would probably be a good mentor.
   Well, he didn't do anything. He didn't give me any direction
   whatsoever. We didn't meet on a regular basis. I had mentioned
   that we should probably get together periodically ... but we never
   sat down and talked. I thought we would meet regularly, I thought
   he would want to meet with me, that he would want to share his
   leadership experience. I'd encourage people to meet once every
   two weeks or so (#15).

Another mentee said it differently, "Unfortunately, we didn't meet as often as we had hoped.... I wish we had been able to get together more often. I didn't get as much understanding of the faculty, the politics, the culture ... as I wanted" (#4).

From the mentees' point of view, there were advantages to the meetings in which some of the time was unplanned: they felt the spontaneous conversation about their progress or about the college was most beneficial.

   So I think if the mentor meetings were planned then you'd go
   there and even if you had one question, two other questions might
   get answered in the meantime. Or otherwise you might not contact
   that person for that one particular question (#19).

   I'm glad the program included mentoring, because otherwise I
   wouldn't have done it [chosen a mentor] ... there was never a
   particular issue that we had as a reason to get together. But we
   met and ... I really picked his brains about academic
   administration, challenges, rewards, and organizational systems
   (#13).

Despite efforts on the part of both mentee and mentor, meetings were not always possible. Without meetings, neither planned discussions nor ad hoc conversations occurred:

   Getting together didn't work well because we tried on several
   occasions to meet ... but I was extremely busy ... and my mentor
   was also extremely busy. So our schedules didn't match in any
   way ... we really couldn't get together at any time ... that's why
   most of our conversations had to take place via email or over the
   telephone (#5).

Additional problems scheduling regular meetings occurred when the mentor was also a supervisor. Often the regular meetings were barely sufficient to deal with the ongoing work issues, leaving no time for mentoring. Despite good intentions, regular meetings with a supervisor-mentor may not always occur: "We were going to meet twice per month, once for supervision and once for mentoring ... it didn't work ... after the first month he cancelled the mentoring meeting ... and then, he just seemed to forget all about it ..." (#14). What this mentee had wanted was quite different: "... a very good listener ... who puts everything else aside ... who suggests a challenge in areas where I want to progress, who helps me allocate my time to the important tasks ..." (#14).

Discussion

The central themes emerging from this study form a platform for building a mentoring program model in the community college setting, a program that supports both psychosocial and career mentoring (as discussed previously in Table 1). The emergent themes provide a way to address the observed failure of current mentoring programs to provide the desired opportunities for career development. The general desire on the part of mentees for informally structured mentoring programs with strong support from the college appears, at first glance, to be a contradiction. However, what emerges from this study is an interpretation of the informal program that requires strong institutional support in order to be successful and to provide the many forms of desired professional development. Table 3 illustrates the characteristics of a formal program with informal structural components that incorporate mentee perceptions of strong institutional support and informal mentoring. Examples of mentoring activities that support career development are provided in Table 2 (as discussed previously in this article).

As noted earlier, mentees use the word informal to describe a mentoring program that provides maximum flexibility and choice to the mentors and mentees. The term informal is contrasted with the term formal to emphasize the mentee's desire to have a personally structured confidential mentoring relationship, one that is not subject to mandated activities or pre-planned goals. It is easy to imagine how program coordinators might misinterpret the word informal to mean a desire for hands-off support, no training, or meetings only upon request. Such interpretations would likely inhibit the amount of information provided by the coordinator and would likely reduce the visibility of the institution's support for the program. Findings from this study indicate that mentees desire greater awareness of mentoring activities, informal gatherings with other mentees, and regular non-mandated meetings with their mentors. It is the researchers' interpretation that mentees want more information about the mentoring process, both for themselves and for their mentors. The researchers also believe that mentoring would more closely meet mentee expectations if the institution's support for mentoring were more apparent to both the mentor and the mentee.

Mentees are quite clear about the kinds of institutional support an informal mentoring program requires and about the kinds of benefits they would like to derive from a mentoring program. At a minimum, mentees want basic information about mentoring: "I don't recommend a 16-week course on being a mentor ... but it wouldn't hurt for people to know exactly what's asked of them" (#5). Mentees voice strong desire for various forms of informal training and information that will provide both mentees and mentors with increased awareness of the ways in which they can use mentoring to enhance professional development and career advancement. Informal gatherings among mentees, mentors, or both, are seen as ways mentees and mentors can discover for themselves how others conduct their mentoring, and hence, how they might want to think about their own mentoring. While joint meetings with mentors and mentees together may be helpful in the early stages of mentoring, meetings of mentees or mentors alone were suggested as a comfortable setting in which to probe for useful tips as mentoring relationships progress.

Mentees suggest that informal gatherings would help mentors or mentees learn how to take initiative outside the private face-to-face mentoring meeting. It is in this context that mentors may become more familiar with the institution's support for public forms of mentoring and, as a result, be more likely to expose their mentee to a broader range of career mentoring activities. Mentors can help each other by suggesting ways to include mentees in various forms of ongoing task forces, regular governance meetings, and other decision-making deliberations. They can discuss ways in which to provide increased networking, ways to sponsor their mentees for new college responsibilities, or ways to gather feedback about the mentee's performance. Mentors are unlikely to take the extra risk to promote their mentee without explicit knowledge that their college supports them; they are hesitant to breach institutional customs or to be seen as crossing the line, or showing favoritism (Kram, 1985). By giving each other support for riskier forms of advocacy, it is more likely that the fuller range of career development functions will occur. Examples of such activities are included in Table 2.

Similarly, mentees would benefit from informal gatherings with other mentees. Mentees wanted to learn how they might take more initiative in their mentoring relationships:

   If I were to do mentoring again ... I'd take more initiative....
   I would set up topics to speak about for each time ... and come up
   with some sort of structure so that when you do get together
   there is a plan. That would also provide opportunities for just
   talking about other things as well (#15).

Mentees felt informal gatherings with other mentees could provide specific information such as ways to set mentoring objectives, information on the college's goals for mentoring, and information about the kinds of benefits achieved by mentees. Not surprisingly, mentees said the meetings should be voluntary so as not to interfere with the natural evolution of the mentoring relationship: "Training should not be mandated ... that will deter them from wanting to make a commitment. Training on a voluntary basis could be good ... seminars keyed to updates, current college efforts, changes ... and how to pass them along ... would be good" (#9). Some believed an informal voluntary meeting would provide even more opportunity for discussion about intangible issues such as leadership development: "It's different from a formal program where you are being trained to do certain tasks. You can talk about leadership skills [and] leadership qualities that you might not talk about in a formal program" (#4).

Conclusion

Despite evidence showing that mentoring is of value to the community college and can play an important role in faculty and staff career development, there is little research to guide community colleges as they build and structure their programs. The purpose of this study was to explore community college mentoring in order to understand mentee perceptions and interpretations of their career benefits and the ways in which mentoring programs can enhance their benefits. The researchers used the insights gained from 23 interviews to provide a platform for building a mentoring model for community colleges--a model that most effectively supports informal mentoring and career development within a formal program context. The study used Kram's (1985) mentoring functions as a theoretical framework for distinguishing psychosocial and career benefits. An inductive qualitative analysis was used to interpret the themes that emerged from the interviews with community college faculty and staff who had been in formal mentoring programs.

This study describes a formal mentoring program model that supports informal mentoring components within a strong, visible, yet non-intrusive, institutional support structure. The informal structural characteristics of the model include voluntary participation, choice in matching, non-mandated activities, separation from the performance evaluation process, and easy access to information on how to conduct their mentoring relationship. Informal mentoring also includes regular meetings between the mentor and the mentee in which both planned and spontaneous issues can be discussed. The study finds that strong institutional support is essential to the mentoring model. Colleges can make their support visible by providing awareness of mentoring activities through informal gatherings, materials, and other resources. In summary, the study puts forth a platform from which community colleges can successfully integrate the contradictions between informal mentoring and strong institutional support in order to achieve increased benefits by initiating formal programs that utilize informal structural characteristics.

Appendix: Interview Guide for 30 Minute Interview With Individual Mentees

1. Consent procedure completed before beginning interview.

2. Demographics: How long were you mentored? Approximately how often did you meet? Was your mentor male or female? How was the relationship initiated?

3. Describe how you and your mentor worked together. How did you decide how to work together? How were meetings initiated? Managed? In what ways did the relationship evolve or progress during your time together?

4. If you had to say what didn't work well, what would it be?

5. In your opinion, what were the ways in which mentoring supported your professional growth? Were there ways in which your mentor gave you visibility in the organization? Would you say that your mentor looked out for you/stood up for you at different times? Could you describe how your mentor advocated for you? Provided you with challenges?

6. What were some of the best things that happened in this mentoring relationship? What did you take from it?

7. Do you think you could use a mentor now? For what?

8. If you were appointed to a college-wide committee to design mentoring programs for professional development, what would you want them to achieve?

9. Imagine you are the president with an advisory committee on professional development. What might you want as proof that mentoring works?

10. We've covered several topics so far. Are there other things you'd like to mention?

Table 1
Developmental Mentoring Functions

Career Functions (a)         Psychosocial Functions (b)

Sponsorship                  Role Modeling
Exposure and Visibility      Acceptance and Confirmation
Coaching                     Counseling
Protection                   Friendship
Challenging Assignments

(a) Career Functions are those aspects of the relationship that
enhance career advancement.

(b) Psychosocial Functions are those aspects of the relationship that
enhance sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in a
professional role.

Note. From Mentoring at work. (p. 23), by K. E. Kram, Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman, and Company. Copyright 1985 by Scott, Foresman, and
Company. Reprinted with permission of the author.

Table 2
Examples of Suggested Mentoring Activities for Career Development

* Mentor co-chairs a committee with mentee

* Mentor tells others of mentee accomplishments and skills

* Mentor lobbies for resources to support mentee

* Mentor observes class or meeting run by mentee prior to formal
  observation

* Mentor reviews mentee performance reports before submission

* Mentor advises on political consequences of alternative assignments

* Mentor identifies helpful contacts for mentee outside college

* Mentor takes mentee to professional conference to make introductions

* Mentor seeks ways to publicly recognize mentee's accomplishments

* Mentor encourages mentee to develop special workshop for other staff
  or faculty

* Mentor encourages mentee to develop written goals

* Mentor encourages mentee to develop suggestions for improved program

* Mentor and mentee jointly examine problem-solving case studies

* Mentor and mentee engage in joint critical reflection of shared topic

* Mentor and mentee jointly seek feedback on multiple aspects of
  performance

Table 3
Formal Institutional Program with Informal Structural Characteristics

Formal program
components that provide   Informal structural characteristics
institutional support

Program structure         Visible institutional support for the
                          mentoring process (vs. authoritarian
                          structure)

Suggestions for           Regular and varied opportunities for
meeting frequency         discussion (vs. required meetings)

Participation             Voluntary participation of mentors and
arrangements              mentees (vs. expected or automatic
                          participation)

Matching                  Choice for both mentor and mentee in
mechanisms                selection of partners (vs. assignment
                          without consultation)

                          Pairings in which mentor works outside the
                          mentee's reporting lines (vs. mentor in
                          position to evaluate mentee)

Training                  Voluntary interactive gatherings for
opportunities             mentees, mentors, or dyads (vs.
                          lecture-style training)

                          Easily accessible information on mentoring
                          process (vs. by appointment or request only)

Optional                  Optional gatherings that promote shared
activities                knowledge of mentoring methods including
                          ways in which dyads set and achieve their
                          goals (vs. proscriptive formats for
                          successive meetings)

Suggestions for           Available information about likely time
length of relationship    required to achieve various benefits (vs.
                          no information about length or stages of
                          relationships)

                          Length determined by participants (vs.
                          rigid contract)

This research project was supported by Federal Formula Funds: Hatch #2002-03-192 and by the Institute for Community College Development, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University. Professors Arthur Wilson and Dawn Schrader, Department of Education, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, served as co-principal investigators. A special thank you to Barbara Storandt, Department of Education, Graduate Research Assistant.

(1) Numbers following each quotation refer to the code number of each interviewee.

References

Barhorst, B. L. (1997). Men and women of the community college: A study of the mentoring processes of community college presidents (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58-12A, 4502.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison of mentoring functions. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619-636.

Cohen, N. H. (2000). A step-by-step guide to starting an effective mentoring program. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daloz, L. A. (1999). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Douglas, C. A. (1997). Formal mentoring programs in organizations. An annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Dunlap, D. M., & Pence, L. J. (1990, April). Formal and informal mentorships for aspiring and practicing administrators. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.

Hopkins, R. A. (2003). A comparison of matching methods, choice and assignment, in formal adult mentoring relationships in the community college context (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell Universtiy, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64-04A, 1190.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.

League for Innovation in the Community College. (2000). What do CEOs want to know about MENTORING? (Quarterly Survey Of League Alliance CEOs No. 18). Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College.

Merriam, S. B., & Thomas, T. K. (1986). The role of mentoring in the career development of community college presidents. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 10, 177-191.

Mullen, E. J. (1998). Vocational and psychosocial mentoring functions: Identifying mentors who serve both. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), 319-331.

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479.

Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., Giannantonio, C. M., & Feren, D. B. (1988). What do proteges look for in a mentor? Results of three experimental studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 15-37.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 529-550.

Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protege personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 688-703.

Valeau, E. (1999). Mentoring: The Association of California Community Colleges Project. Community College Review, 27(3), 33-42.

Van Ast, J., & Linduska, K. (1995, December). Documenting value added measures for the Iowa Community College Induction/Mentoring (CCIM) Program. Paper presented at the American Vocational Association Convention, Denver, CO.

Wunsch, M. A. (1994). Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zachary, L. J. (2000). The mentor's guide: Facilitating effective learning relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ruth A. Hopkins is a consultant with the Institute for Community College Development at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. [e-mail]

Elizabeth Grigoriu is a research associate with the Department of Education and former associate director of the Institute for Community College Deveopment at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. [e-mail]